A Bill in the Utah State Legislation that would allow anyone over the age of 18 to carry a loaded gun in their car, has been put on hold only after the Bill was nearly killed. Currently, it is lawful to carry a gun in your car but it has to be unloaded and cannot be concealed. The new law would allow the gun to be loaded and either encased or on the car seat.

Surrounding states allow for loaded weapons but there was emotional and inflammatory comments that have played a part in slowing this Bill up. Some of the negative comments have come from businesses claiming they have the right to keep a safe workplace and from the inflammatory rhetoric we always hear about gun possessors going mad and killing anything in sight.

Some lawmakers had some concern about the age factor but didn’t seem too concerned about dangerous weapons and crime rate. This Bill may proceed slowly in the next few weeks.

In South Dakota, HB1199, if passed, will ensure that anyone who has applied for or who owns a permit to carry a concealed weapon, will not be available to the public. In what is being described as a privacy issue, supporters of the new Bill say that it is legal to own guns and it is legal, through lawful permitting, to carry a hidden gun and it shouldn’t be information that is necessary for the public to know. Many feel those wanting to know who has a permit, want to know so they can harrass permit holders or applicants.

Opponents of the Bill claim that they have a right to know and that withholding the information also will infringe on their 1st Amendment right to free speech. These people want to be able to publish lists of names of people possessing permits. Of course, I haven’t stretched my weak mind far enough to be able to see how this is an infringement on free speech.

The Bill was embraced by the Senate Judiciary Committee and now goes before the full Senate. At present, those in the process of applying for a concealed weapons permit, are added to a list that is public. The new Bill would make that list private as well as permit holders.

A bill that was approved to allow citizens to carry concealed weapons in public places in Wisconsin, was sent on to Governor Jim Doyle’s desk for signing and he quickly vetoed it. The Wisconsin Senate put together a successful attempt to override the Governor’s veto in a vote of 23-10. The bill goes back to the general Assembly where an override vote will be taken on Tuesday. Many feel the Assembly has enough votes to complete the override.

Wisconsin is one of only a handful of states that have any kind of gun carrying legislation. Proponents are anxious to get the bill passed and opponents still, in my opinion, can’t come up with any good reason not to allow weapons carry.

State Assembly Assistant Minority Leader Jon Richards (D) Milwaukee, presented a report compiled by his staff called, “Not Welcome in Wisconsin: An Analysis of Concealed Carry Legislation”. The report is an attempt to disspell what they consider dangerous myths about guns and gun carrying but according to the NRA in an article in the Green Bay Press Gazette:

“the same old, tired misinformation from lobbying organizations that oppose an individual’s right to self-defense.”

David Hemenway, a professor of health policy at Harvard University and author of, “Private Guns Public Health” had some things to add to the argument.

….says much of the pro-gun lobby has based its arguments on research published in the 1990s that has since been found to have “serious reporting errors” and miscoding in its data analysis.

He cited a report by the National Research Council released last year in which a panel of scientists found no causal link between concealed-carry laws and crime rates.

In a telephone interview Friday, Hemenway said about right-to-carry laws, “You can definitely say that there is no good evidence that it has reduced crime.”

We all know that statistic can be manipulated to show whatever results we want it to show. Hemenway says there is no good evidence that having right-to-carry laws has reduced crime. Is there also no good evidence to show that crime hasn’t increased? Is there bad evidence that shows either up or down changes in crime?

As always, those opposed to gun ownership generally come from one or both of two areas – fear of something they know nothing about and their anger toward someone doing something they don’t like. But then you get politicians adding their lame reasons why Wisconsin shouldn’t have this bill passed.

“I think the bottom line with this issue is this is a bill that’s going to do nothing to make health care more affordable, it’s going to do nothing to create jobs and it’s going to do nothing to make home heating costs more affordable.”

Where would we be if the majority of our policy makers approached their jobs with this kind of thinking? There are many bills that passed through the houses of politicians that have litte effect on many things. Is that reason enough not to pass them?

And of course citizens added their same old, same old into the mix. This response was made known via the Internet.

“I totally disagree with this proposal because even though you may have to go through training to get your permit to carry a weapon, training doesn’t mean that you’re not going to snap one day just because you had training,” said Kevin Spice of Green Bay, who cited the example of Chai Vang, a trained National Guard sharpshooter who was convicted last year of killing six deer hunters in Northern Wisconsin.

That’s true and I could make just as ingnorant a statement by applying that same logic to driving an automobile, flying a plane, or working in the Post Office.

Now more than ever, Americans are able to better understand why it is important for them to defend and protect themselves. Carrying deters criminals and provides individuals the ability to protect themselves when seriously threatened. Lawful, educated gun owners are not criminals. They do not use their guns to rob banks and kill innocent people. They simply want to protect and defend themselves, their families and their property and they should not have that right taken away from them by a small minority of scared people.

A bill to actually clarify existing law, cleared the South Dakota House Judiciary Committe in a vote of 10-2 in favor. The bill defines that people can stand up and protect themselves without having to run away.

A 1998 decision by the South Dakota Supreme Court stated that people don’t need to run the other way when faced with serious injury or death and had the right to use deadly force. This bill would clarify that ruling.

Two states this morning, Montana and Delaware, are reporting that hunting licenses are being sold to convicted felons. There are people in both states that are angry and upset that this is happening. The problem is they don’t understand the laws or the sport and refuse to face facts.

Montana has turned up some 660 licenses known to have been sold to convicted felons but in their still on going investigation, the vast majority of them are hunting with bow and arrow. The rest they are working with parole officers in determining if violations of parole or probation has occured and remedying the problem.
In Delaware, a felon who was hunting, discharged his firearm, which of course is illegal for him to possess, and the bullet went through the windshield of a passing motorist stiking him in the head injuring him. The victim is sueing everybody, including his own mother (not really, I’m making a point.

First let’s clarify the law and then we’ll discuss the lawsuit. It is unlawful for a felon, to be in possession of a firearm. But in nearly every state and it may be all of them, it is not illegal for a convicted felon to purchase and hunting license. Why? Many felons take up hunting with bow and arrow and that is perfectly legal. Also, nearly every state has no means to check whether the person they are selling a license to is a felon. If they did, it is still legal to sell them a hunting license. That is why they don’t.
If the citizens of this country want to change the laws so that convicted felons can’t hunt, then they should persue that endeavor. Personally, I think it’s a stupid idea and would solve nothing. I can guarantee that the felon in Delaware who was out hunting would be out hunting whether or not there was a law. That’s what criminals do.
So, on to the lawsuit. Anthony Higgins was the gentleman I spoke of who became the victim of an errant bullet supposedly fired from the rifle of a convicted felon possessing a valid hunting license.

The felon, Benjamin Walls III, 37, has a string of felony convictions on his resume. Here’s what an article in Delaware Online had to say about who Higgins was sueing.

Higgins, who narrowly escaped death, is suing Walls and other members of the hunting party, as well as the plumbing supply store that sold Walls a hunting license despite his failure to present proof of required hunter education training.

As part of the initial lawsuit, Higgins was also naming the owners of the land Walls was hunting on.

In an August ruling dismissing the owners of the land upon which Walls and his companions were hunting as defendants in the lawsuit

The judge who heard that part of the case and dismissed the land owners went on to say that it was against the law for Walls to buy a hunting license.

Superior Court Judge Joseph Slights wrote that “the parties appear to agree that Walls was ineligible for licensure because he was a convicted felon.”

What? The judge ruling in this case doesn’t know the law? Holy cow! The lawyer representing Higgins, Richard Diliberto, said that –

…that’s not the law. Nothing in the Delaware code prohibits Walls or any other felon from getting a hunting license.

That was confirmed also by James Graybeal, director of enforcement for the Division of Fish and Wildlife.

“In Delaware, it’s not illegal for you to buy a license because you’re a felon,” said James Graybeal, director of enforcement for the Division of Fish and Wildlife. “The breaking of the law comes when you are carrying a firearm when hunting, because that’s against the law.”

“Some of the police agencies, they can’t understand why we sell a license to a felon, and I try to make them understand that we don’t have the technological infrastructure set up to not allow it,”

Unless the laws are going to be changed to include the loss of being able to buy a hunting license, then the only recourse is to enforce the laws that already exist to stop felons from having a gun.

People and lawyers need to stop attacking the Fish and Wildlife Departments for not being able to control convicted felons. If the states want those issuing licenses to have all the necessary technology to run background checks on everyone who wants to buy a license, they need to be able to cough up the money to do it and not expect the hunters to foot the bill by paying higher license fees.

I’m sure none of us have heard the last of this. If this in any way can be used by the anti-hunting, anti-gun crowd to further demand taking our guns away, they will.

John S. “Jack” Reid is embarrassed and also thankful that no one was injured yesterday when his handgun, a .380 caliber, accidentally discharged in his office at the state building where it is located. He was attempting to unload the weapon when it went off striking a bullet-proof vest hanging on his door.

Virginia law allows lawmakers to carry weapons into the buildings where they work. Reid had acquired a permit for concealed weapon carry a couple of years ago over concerns of some kind of threat of which he would not elaborate.

Some lawmakers began talking about taking a new look at the rules governing handguns in the state houses but House Majority Leader H. Morgan Griffith had this to say.

“The truth is you’re more likely to get hurt in a car accident than by a gun,” he said. “So why restrict people’s freedoms?”

This morning, John Dougherty of World Net Daily, has a commentary and story on the hypocricy of gun laws everywhere and cites San Francisco as an example of that.

He tells a story of a woman wanting protection from an abusive husband. Follow this story of the events that landed her in jail and stripped her of her right to own a gun and the hypocrisy that follows. This is sure to turn your stomach.

I am soley responsible for all my actions – period. And so are you. If this is true, why do we continuously blame someone else? Boston blames the other New England states for their gun violence. New York blames the rest of the world for their gun violence and Canada blames the U.S. for its gun violence.

We go about dealing with criminals in this country the same way that we deal with terrorist – we think they think like law abiding people who are respectful of laws. Not true! We can make laws forever but if they are never enforced what is to become of the criminal?

When we refuse to enforce existing laws and our ideologue fails, let’s blame someone else. This is what the world has resorted to.

Let’s use the same thought processes as Bloomberg of New York and David Miller, Mayor of Toronto. They believe that if you go to the rest of the planet and remove guns from the lawful, gun crimes will cease. Let’s apply that same theory across the board.

If we prohibit families from having baby girls, there won’t be dirty old men preying on them and we can reduce of sexual predator problems drastically.

We can take cars away from the general public and that would stop many things – bank robberies using get-away vehicles, accidents that kill innocent people, speeding, car theft. Just think of the possibilities. Car are evil, man!

Let’s take food away too! Fat people cause us all kinds of problems and no more method of poisoning someone you don’t like.

We now need to remove the sale of baseball bats from stores nationwide because we have seen on video, teenagers beating up homeless people in Miami with them.

And speaking of homeless, let’s get rid of park benches. Let’s get rid of parks for that matter. How many crimes are committed in parks everyday? Take away the parks, no more crime. This is easy. Why haven’t we thought of this before?

If we didn’t have lobbyists, there wouldn’t be a problem with illegal campaign money changing hands. Oh, wait a minute! That actually might work. My bad!

Maybe you’ve gotten my point. Bloomberg, Miller and others need to pay attention to what’s going on at home and stop blaming the rest of the world’s innocents for their lack of enforcement problems.

Well, that’s if you live in Boston but Boston and the state of Massachusetts haven’t figured it out yet.

Boston City Councilor Rob Consalvo wants gun manufacturers to install gps tracking devices into all guns manufactured and sold. No, I’m not kidding. But Boston don’t get it. Their arrests involving gun related crime has risen 37% and crimes committed with guns has risen 77%. What they are too stupid to understand is right in front of their faces. The more rights they take away from lawful citizens to arm and protect themselves, the more the thugs and crooks move in to further their careers as criminals.

If I were a hunting guide, I wouldn’t move to Boston looking for work. On the same token, if I were a criminal, like a bank robber, or a cat burglar, I’d go where nobody is allowed to own a gun. But they can’t figure it out. Neither can other cities around this country. Statistics show that the safest places to be is wear the citizenry are armed.

I wonder if the ACLU will jump on this wagon? Doubtful! Or any other civil liberties group. What other items in our society do we track the whereabouts of? Some people CHOOSE to have tracking devices put in their cars in case they are stolen – the key word being choose.

I guess if I wanted to have a device installed in my guns, that should be my choice.